Tuesday round-up

Posted Tue, January 18th, 2011 9:18 am by Nabiha Syed

Today, the Court will hear oral argument in Stern v. Marshall, which Lyle Denniston of this blog has described as a "long-running legal soap opera, fit in some ways for daytime television yet involving serious questions of law." As Lyle explains, Stern v. Marshall will require the Court to interpret the Bankruptcy Code of 1984 and the federal judiciary's Article III powers, to "sort out some, but not all, of the complex questions" in the protracted battle between the estates of E. Pierce Marshall and Vickie Lynn Marshall (better known as Anna Nicole Smith). The Associated Press touches upon the basic facts of the case, while The Daily Caller delves into the issue at more depth. Lanny J. Davis and David B. Rivkin, Jr., writing for The Hill's Pundits Blog, celebrate the "purple moment" offered by the case, explaining how the issue has brought together a "strange-bedfellows coalition of liberals, conservatives, and independents."

The Court is also scheduled to hear oral argument in two other cases, Smith v. Bayer Corp. and The Boeing Company v. United States (consolidated with General Dynamics Corp. v. United States). Joan Biskupic has a detailed report on the latter in USA Today, calling the paired cases a "rare chance" for the Justices to consider the dimensions of the state-secrets privilege. Lyle Denniston of this blog notes that the Court has not examined the full scope of the doctrine — which allows the government to "short-circuit" a lawsuit because of national security concerns "“ since 1953. The Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor also discuss the case, while the editorial board of the Washington Post argues that the Court should "take this opportunity to refine its earlier pronouncements on state secrets that have led lower court judges to err too much in the government’s favor."

And finally, this morning the Court will release orders from its January 14 Conference (our list of "Petitions to Watch" is available here).

Briefly:

At the Washington Post, Robert Barnes clarifies that the Justices are not, in fact, laughing at advocates who appear before them.

At his Jost on Justice blog, Ken Jost opines that although "three female justices represent an advance for women," the conservative majority on the Court has "shown no special awareness of the history of discrimination against women in law and society."

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 does not provide a freestanding basis for parties holding a judgment under Section 1605A to attach and execute against the property of a foreign state; rather, for Section 1610(g) to apply, the immunity of the property at issue must be rescinded under a separate provision within Section 1610.

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers The anti-retaliation provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Class v. United States A guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal.

Murphy v. Smith In cases governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d), district courts must apply as much of a judgment in a federal civil rights suit as necessary, up to 25 percent, to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees.

Conference of February 23, 2018

McLaughlin v. McLaughlin Whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred when it held that a biology-based paternity statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith.

United States v. Jackson Whether the definition of the term “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.